Atheism: Individual vs. Group Identity

This is not intended as a strict dichotomy -- grey area is just fine --, but do you view atheism or aspects of atheism as being defined individually or defined as a group? This is about personal perception or ideals, and not describing how you think others perceive atheism.

Replies to This Discussion

Not sure. It has taken on a sub-culture because the dogma of theism demands a refutation/response as strong as those who assert with said dogma. In other words, it's an endless battle that necessitates a group front.

The group dynamic is really just a bubbling of ideas. The fact that they congregate, have symposiums, conferences, etc. is not in direct conflict with individual or independent thinking. In fact, it's the exact opposite of theism --- where they thrive on absolutes. In absolutes, once one thing falls apart, everything does.

Theism brings along with it so much other baggage that one must believe in. It is also important to note that atheism doesn't splinter in to too many different "denominations." There is something called "Atheism Plus" -- which is a load of B.S. --- but other than that, the same principles apply: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD(S).

So overall, for me, it is better off maintaining a group dynamic --- it is better suited to advocate against theistic ideas and theocratic laws. However, for ideas, individualism is important to re-shaping or re-defining previous ideas or once-held beliefs, in order to better our arguments or improve ourselves in general. : )

Strictly speaking atheism is about what we do not believe, which means we won't necessarily have much else in common. I know a lot of my other views are quite minority here on this site, but that doesn't make all you wrong-headed people somehow less perfectly atheist. *grin*

The consequence of that, though, is my extreme dislike of some atheist groups who claim that "atheism" defines them... but then have official positions on other issues, as if disagreeing with them on those makes you less of a good atheist. (This does not apply to groups primarily labeling themselves "humanist" because humanism is a larger body of beliefs, and atheism is just part of it.)

I am not sure you realized I was talking about organizations when I wrote my second paragraph. (Of course an individual is more than just a walking paragon of non-belief.) To make up a fanciful example, let's say someone formed a group called Terran Atheists. A worldwide organization. BUT the group not only took a stand on whether god exists, but also took a stand (one way or the other) on abortion (maybe it's anti-), gun control (maybe they think everyone should be required to own a fully automatic weapon), single payer health care... (maybe they think everyone should only be allowed to have 3 thousand dollars a year spent on their health care--but hey at least they will have the government pay that money). [OK I've deliberately chosen positions that will offend most if not all people here.] What do these issues have to do with atheism, and why should I be expected to take specific stances on them in order to join a group that's supposedly about atheism? Why should I join a group that will claim I support those other stances as well? Why join a group that in fact implies I am not really an atheist unless I support those positions?

A single-issue group should stick to that issue, or, if they really want to hold some sort of open forum to explore other topics, do so in a way that makes it clear the group as such doesn't take a position on it; that means if that cranky eccentric wants to talk about his stuff at the meeting you should tolerate him or tolerate no one.

Methinks this says it all. I believe that all Atheists have a general need to be fair, and to listen to other arguments in order to make up their own mind, but in the end, they will choose what they believe and it may or may not be similar to that of other Atheists. Which is likely why we will probably never call ourselves "Brights."

"Would like it to be this way" is a huge improvement over the practice of some religious folks of converting people with the sword, punishing apostasy by shunning or even death, likewise with heresy, likewise with "witchcraft," and likewise with other "sins" like homosexuality (but somehow not with blended fabrics).

Remember that the word we were supposed to use for the theists was "supers" though, not sounding derogatory in the least. This was in conscious imitation of "gay/straight" where neither word started out with a bad connotation. To be sure "bright" puts on more airs than "gay" did, and even though "super" also has complimentary connotations, that's probably why most atheists didn't pick up on this.

His style used to piss me off. It represents a sub-culture (even if the majority) of atheists that I don't like to identify with. I didn't use to like Hitchens, either. But I got over their presentation styles, and learned from the substance of their presentations.

Ironically, the quote that endeared me to Hitchens was his quote about how a particular theist--and I don't even remember who--if given an enema, could fit into a matchbox. I think also that this quote came soon after the theist's death, which made the quote even more effective (for me). I guess I like crude+intellectual humor, that most people need time to think about before getting it. I could so easily and vicariously enjoy picturing those theist faces transitioning from confusion to shock. I would probably even have enjoyed that sense of humor if Hitchens had made that comment about me, given a few days to get over it.